Since the end of the Cold War, debate has raged among scholars of security strategy as to whether the nature of war has changed and, if so, what that means. Concepts such as “new” and “hybrid” war have entered the lexicon, suggesting that there is an important, perhaps profound, distinction between the wars of the past and those of the present and future. Some analysts even suggest that the concept of war itself is obsolete. For such radicals, militaries and defenseestablishments must undertake wholesale retooling or transformation to adjust to contemporary war. Traditionalists, by contrast, focus on continuity. They contend that while the character of war has changed
(as it often does), its essential nature persists. Strategy should not, for the traditionalists, succumb to fads. This debate has profound implications for strategy, force development, and leader development. For the United States (and other nations) to prepare for future security challenges, its military and civilian leaders must grapple with the changing meaning of war.